Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Orbit – open-source design system

beta.orbit.kiwi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Orbit – open-source design system

#22

Post by traceroute66 »

The problem I have with all these self-promotion frameworks (i.e. CSS frameworks open sourced by commercial entities) is that they are inherently at the mercy of said companies.

Take Zurb Foundation for example, as far as I can tell its basically become abandonware. Foundation 7 has been promised forever and yet we're still stuck with Foundation 6 which has all sorts of bugs and gotcha's that will catch people out because the framework is out-of-date in comparison with the technology that people are using to access websites.

The only exception to this is Twitter Bootstrap which has been consistently kept up to date. Whilst I don't agree with some of the design decisions in the latest Bootstrap 4, it remains a solid, well maintained framework.

Re: Orbit – open-source design system

#24

Post by garmaine »

city41 wrote: post #18
elric wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point that parent was making is that it isn't at all clear what orbit is about. A "design system" is such an extremely vague term. Houses? Cupboards?

"Design system" is a pretty well defined term in the world of UX. For example: https://uxdesign.cc/everything-you-need-to-know-about-design...

“Design system” is pretty well defined in every field. And defined differently, which is the problem. I assure you engineering design is not the same thing. “UX design system” would have been better at least.

Re: Orbit – open-source design system

#25

Post by camgunz »

garmaine wrote: post #24
city41 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Design system" is a pretty well defined term in the world of UX. For example: https://uxdesign.cc/everything-you-need-to-know-about-design...

“Design system” is pretty well defined in every field. And defined differently, which is the problem. I assure you engineering design is not the same thing. “UX design system” would have been better at least.

It's clear it's a [D]esign system for [D]esigners when you go to the site and see things like Colors, Typography, Spacing, Tone, etc.

It's fine if things are targeted! I don't expect all my technical documentation to fully namespace all their ambiguous terms in case a non-engineer shows up. This site is for [D]esigners and that's cool.

Re: Orbit – open-source design system

#27

Post by contravariant »

kaycebasques wrote: post #7

The title ("Orbit – open-source design system documentation") is a bit confusing to me (I'm a technical writer so anything with "documentation" catches my eye). It seems like the provided link is just the documentation for a collection of open source web components? Or is the documentation itself open source? I'm not trying to be pedantic here, just asking in case I'm missing something. In other words it seems like t…

I also have some trouble figuring out which of the following ways to parse it

(open-source) ((design system) documentation)

(open-source design) (system documentation)

(open-source (design system)) (documentation)

Re: Orbit – open-source design system

#29

Post by vosper »

traceroute66 wrote: post #22

The problem I have with all these self-promotion frameworks (i.e. CSS frameworks open sourced by commercial entities) is that they are inherently at the mercy of said companies. Take Zurb Foundation for example, as far as I can tell its basically become abandonware. Foundation 7 has been promised forever and yet we're still stuck with Foundation 6 which has all sorts of bugs and gotcha's that will catch people out be…

I think Material UI is going pretty strong, too? They've just released a beta of version 5.

I think overall the comes-from-corporate-entity frameworks are probably still a better bet than the one-persons-pet-project ones - there are loads of those, too.

Post reply on HN